Echaka Cattle Ranch Ltd. V. Nigerian Agricultural And Cooperative Bank Limited (1998)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

On 19th April, 1982, Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank, the respondent in this appeal, granted a loan of N2,000,000,00 (Two million naira) to the plaintiff under certain terms and conditions signed by both parties to the agreement. On 23rd July. 1988, the respondent caused to be published in Nigerian Chronicle Newspaper it’s intention to sell plaintiff’s property held as security for the loan.

In order to stall the sale of it’s properties by public auction, the appellant went to Ogoja High Court and claimed for the following reliefs:

i. A declaration that the threatened sale or other alienation of the plaintiff’s properties by the defendant or its agents will violate the plaintiffs rights under the agreement and be null and void.

ii. An injunction restraining the defendant by itself and or its agents or servants from selling or alienating the plaintiff’s properties as the loan is not yet mature for payment.

iii. N5,000,000 damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the false impression created by the malicious publication.”

The suit was first handled by Binang J. who granted an exparte interim injunction and restrained the respondent from disposing of the secured properties of the appellant by public auction pending the determination of the suit.

During the exchange of pleadings the respondent averred in the Statement of Defence that at the time of the institution of this suit in the High Court the appellant’s indebtedness to the respondent stood at N3,644,789.70 (Three million, six hundred and forty-four thousand, seven hundred and eighty-nine naira, seventy kobo). Therefore, the respondent made a counter-claim against the appellant in the following averments:

18. The defendant hereby counter-claims against the plaintiff for the sum of N3,644,789.70 (Three million, six hundred and forty-four thousand, seven hundred and eighty-nine naira, seventy kobo) being the total sum owing by the plaintiff to the defendant as at 30/9/89, made up of the principal loan and interest thereon.
19. Wherefore and in further answer to the Statement of Claim, the defendant will at the trial set up and rely on all legal and equitable defences open and available to it and it will in particular urge the Court to:-

(a) Dismiss all the arms of the plaintiff’s Claim as being untenable in law, misconceived, frivolous and an adventure at unjust enrichment and a gold digging exercise.

(b) Enter judgment for the plaintiff (sic) defendant in terms of its counter claim and furthermore.

(c) The defendant will urge the Court in limine, to discharge the Order of Court dated the 2/9/88 made exparte for interim injunction against the defendant till the determination of the suit, the same being bad in law.”

The suit suffered several adjournments. On 12th December, 1990, Mbanefo J. adjourned the matter to the 18th and 19th February, 1991 for hearing. On that day appellant’s counsel sought for leave to withdraw from the case on the ground that his BRIEF had not been “perfected”. The secretary of the appellant admitted that they received a letter, from the counsel four days before the hearing reminding the company about problems of his assignment. The court however refused to grant appellants’ counsel leave to withdraw from the suit and adjourned it to the following day.

On the following day appellant’s counsel did not show up, but the Managing Director. Chief Morphy did. He prayed the court to grant him a long adjournment so that he could settle with the bank. The court recorded that it had adjourned the case to 14th, 15th and 16th May, 1991 for report of settlement or definite hearing.

On 14th May, 1991, a lawyer. Mr. E.E.E.Ita. announced himself representing the appellant. He said that he was a new counsel in the case and would like a further adjournment of the matter so as to effect a settlement with the bank. Respondent’s counsel opposed the application and told the court that during the three months period that the case had been adjourned the Managing Director of the appellant did not make any written or personal contact with the Head Office of the bank in Kaduna over the settlement. The court nevertheless adjourned the case to 16th May. 1991, for the appellant to submit proposals for settlement of it’s indebtedness to the bank or have the case dismissed.